Update problem

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful error behavior (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and the return shape, but says nothing about partial-update semantics, permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-sentence purpose is well front-loaded, but the remainder is Sphinx directive boilerplate (:type/:rtype/:raises) that consumes space without adding semantic meaning for an agent choosing parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no per-parameter schema descriptions, the description leaves most of the contract unspecified. An agent cannot tell what the remaining sysparm_* parameters do or which combinations are valid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 15 parameters, and the docstring documents only problem_id and data, leaving 13 sysparm_* controls (view, query, fields, display_value, pagination flags, etc.) entirely unexplained. It also claims problem_id/data are mandatory via a raises clause while the schema marks every property optional with default null.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

First line states a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing problem record'), which cleanly separates it from servicenow_create_problem, servicenow_delete_problem, and servicenow_get_problem. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the generic servicenow_update_table_record alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this specialized problem-update tool over the generic table-record update, nor any prerequisites such as required role or state constraints. Usage is only implied by the tool name itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.